ABDUL SALAM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. C. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. B B Gogoi, learned Addl Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State-respondent.

(2.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.2.2003 passed by the learned Special (Sessions) Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai in Special (N) Case No. 18/2001, whereby and where under the appellant, Md Abdul Salam has been convicted under section 20 (b) (i) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000 in default, to suffer RI for a further period of one month.

(3.) By this appeal, the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been challenged. The facts involved in this case are that on 27.5.2001, the Excise party of Mangaldai led by its Inspector, Sri Biren Kumar Deka was engaged in vehicle checking duty at Puniachok, NH-52 in the morning hours. During such check the Excise party intercepted a passenger bus bearing registration No. AS-12 A 5427 and conducted a thorough search of each passenger and their belongings. During such search about 16 Kgs of suspected Ganja was recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant, Md Abdul Salam who was a passenger of the said bus. The Excise party took custody of the Ganja, arrested the accused and produced before the Court for keeping him in judicial custody. The alleged seized Ganja was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldai and sample of the same was drawn and sent for Chemical Examiner, Excise, Assam for analysis and report. After analysis of the sample submitted analysis report that the sample was Ganja (Cannabis Indica) and after completion of the investigation, the Excise Inspector submitted an offence report against the accused Abdul Salam under section, 20 (b) (i) NDPS Act, 1985. The offence report was submitted before the learned Special (Sessions) Judge at Darrang and after receipt thereof, the learned Special (Sessions) Judge, Darrang framed charge under section 20 (b) (i) NDPS to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. Four witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The defence examined none. The defence case is one denial. The trial Court taking care of the facts and evidence on record both oral and documentary recorded a finding of guilt of the appellant under section 20 (b) (i) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly convicted the appellant as indicated above.